Rice: Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction”

posted at 12:01 pm on June 2, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Did the White House send Susan Rice out on another Sunday talk show fool’s errand? Just as with the Benghazi attack, Barack Obama’s national-security adviser went out on a Sunday to discuss a burgeoning controversy, and perhaps without a full set of the facts in front of her. When questioned by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week, Rice tried to parry the question about Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s initial disappearance, which some of his fellow soldiers believed to be an act of desertion that cost more American lives. Rice insisted that Bergdahl had served with “honor and distinction,” a claim that will be tested in the coming days and weeks (via Daniel Halper):

“Certainly anybody who’s been held in those conditions, in captivity for five years, has paid an extraordinary price. But that is really not the point. The point is that he’s back,” Rice told ABC host George Stephanopoulos when asked whether Bergdahl was a deserter and whether he’d face punishment.

“He is going to be safely reunited with his family. He served the United States with honor and distinction. And we’ll have the opportunity eventually to learn what has transpired in the past years, but what’s most important now is his health and well being, that he have the opportunity to recover in peace and security and be reunited with his family. Which is why this is such a joyous day.”

Halper notes that Rice also claimed in this segment that “Sergeant Bergdahl wasn’t simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.” That depends on a very broad definition of battlefield. Fellow soldiers from his unit claim Bergdahl deserted and was captured well away from any military action, and they’re far from joyous over the deal that freed him. One of them, Nathan Bradley Bethea, wrote a damning piece today for The Daily Beast expressing outrage over the swap of Bergdahl for five high-value Taliban targets:

The Daily Beast’s Christopher Dickey later wrote that “[w]hether Bergdahl…just walked away from his base or was lagging behind on a patrol at the time of his capture remains an open and fiercely debated question.” Not to me and the members of my unit. Make no mistake: Bergdahl did not “lag behind on a patrol,” as was cited in news reports at the time. There was no patrol that night. Bergdahl was relieved from guard duty, and instead of going to sleep, he fled the outpost on foot. He deserted. I’ve talked to members of Bergdahl’s platoon—including the last Americans to see him before his capture. I’ve reviewed the relevant documents. That’s what happened.

Our deployment was hectic and intense in the initial months, but no one could have predicted that a soldier would simply wander off. Looking back on those first 12 weeks, our slice of the war in the vicinity of Sharana resembles a perfectly still snow-globe—a diorama in miniature of all the dust-coated outposts, treeless brown mountains and adobe castles in Paktika province—and between June 25 and June 30, all the forces of nature conspired to turn it over and shake it. On June 25, we suffered our battalion’s first fatality, a platoon leader named First Lieutenant Brian Bradshaw. Five days later, Bergdahl walked away. …

On July 4, 2009, a human wave of insurgents attacked the joint U.S./Afghan outpost at Zerok. It was in east Paktika province, the domain of our sister infantry battalion (3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry). Two Americans died and many more received wounds. Hundreds of insurgents attacked and were only repelled by teams of Apache helicopters. Zerok was very close to the Pakistan border, which put it into the same category as outposts now infamous—places like COP Keating or Wanat, places where insurgents could mass on the Pakistani side and then try to overwhelm the outnumbered defenders.

One of my close friends was the company executive officer for the unit at Zerok. He is a mild-mannered and generous guy, not the kind of person prone to fits of pique or rage. But, in his opinion, the attack would not have happened had his company received its normal complement of intelligence aircraft: drones, planes, and the like. Instead, every intelligence aircraft available in theater had received new instructions: find Bergdahl. My friend blames Bergdahl for his soldiers’ deaths. I know that he is not alone, and that this was not the only instance of it. His soldiers’ names were Private First Class Aaron Fairbairn and Private First Class Justin Casillas.

It is important to name all these names. For the veterans of the units that lost these men, Bergdahl’s capture and the subsequent hunt for him will forever tie to their memories, and to a time in their lives that will define them as people. He has finally returned. Those men will never have the opportunity.

Bill Kristol wondered this morning whether Rice ended up holding the bag again for another false narrative from the Obama White House:

“Those are the people who fought, who fought in the same company in some cases, and who feel like they sacrificed to get this guy back who may have behaved at best irresponsibly and at worst worse. And we need to have honesty about that. There was a big Army investigation–what did Susan Rice know? What did President Obama know about the investigation about Bergdahl?

“It’s one thing to trade terrorists for a real POW, someone who was taken on the battlefield fighting honorably for our country. It’s another thing to trade away 5 high-ranking terrorists to someone who walked away.”

Kristol asks the right question, at least in terms of the politics of it. If the White House was this ignorant of the issue, then it calls the administration’s competence into question. If they did know it, then it calls something else into question, too.

Update (Allahpundit): To follow up on Ed’s point, Rice saying that Bergdahl was captured “on the battlefield” smells like a sly way of implying without clearly stating that he was captured during combat, as most POWs are. I think she and the White House are calculating, possibly correctly, that most voters will pay attention to this story for 48 hours after Bergdahl’s release and then tune out. To the extent they can use that window to create the impression that Bergdahl is a POW as that’s commonly understood, they’re going to do it.

Simple question: If he was captured “on the battlefield,” during which battle, specifically, was he taken?

He was drunk and left on his own, not like Susan Rice said “he was caught by the Taliban in the field”.

First, he has never been with the Taliban. He’s been with an AlQauida branch of really bad terrorists, one of the worst. They cut off 6,000 heads of sheepherders and such, with their wives/kids forced to watch.

His father is a buffoon, who made him.

obama is a traitor, who needs to be punished in a commensurate way…by Boehner, who’s the real traitor to the land.

To the extent they can use that window to create the impression that Bergdahl is a POW as that’s commonly understood, they’re going to do it.

AP, I’m not sure this is going to help the Obama administration. I think people are willing to consider him a POW while scrutinizing the way that he became a POW. A few misdirections by Susan Rice isn’t going to distract anyone long enough. It seems as Rice is on the losing end of this gamble.

So are conservatives going to really dumb on a POW for political points?
I’m not sure this a good strategy. It has backfiring written all over it.

weedisgood on June 2, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Your concern is noted, troll.

By the way, it’s his fellow troops that are ‘on point’ here – you have a beef with *them*? You siding with the fellow for whom it was known and reported when he disappeared that he went AWOL over *them*? Siding with the guy whose father is a clear terrorist sympathizer over *them*?

Update (Allahpundit): … I think she and the White House are calculating, possibly correctly, that most voters will pay attention to this story for 48 hours after Bergdahl’s release and then tune out. …

But a few will wait, patiently, quietly, like they do for John Walker Lindh.

I Like how you refer to what she’s doing as a “Fool’s Errand” instead of “Deliberately Telling Lies That She KNOWS Are Lies To Cover-Up The Evil Deeds Of Her Masters”……..because “Fool’s Errand” taker her compliiciness right out of the equation….

Rice: Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction”
posted at 12:01 pm on June 2, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Ed –
I can’t see that you or I are in any position to make a judgement here. As for whatever went down with Bergdahl is the days and moments leading to his capture, we just don’t know the story there at all. And it should be so hard for people to be more compassionate about the psychic wounds that may have been present for him. If he’d frozen from fear in a foxhole, would be dignified for folks to mock him for that?
Would a guy who was rationally planning to desert make his move in that place and that hostile climate and environment?
Everyone should try and not to go off the rails here.
Maybe a good time to try and let patriotism trump judgment.

So are conservatives going to really dumb on a POW for political points?
I’m not sure this a good strategy. It has backfiring written all over it.

weedisgood on June 2, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Going through life constantly baked is such a sad sight.

Desertion can be punished by execution. It is a very serious crime. And Americans lost their lives trying to find this possible deserter. Furthermore, it is those serving are the most upset about all of this. What say you to them?

I am sure he did just like all the others that went AWOL, RIGHT. They all get medals and honorable discharges. And don’t forget bragging rights now that the left has decide that you can lie about your military careers and have, like Senator Richard Blumenthal to name one. You remember him as one of the early ones to came out to fire General Shinseki, who actually served his country.

What battle? How about “The Battle of the Bowl”, since one terrorist account has him grabbed right off the loo. That’s about the measure of his manliness.

Via CNN: They’re going to promote the SOB to SSgt next month as well. Sounds like he’s already part of the administration.

How about some answers and payback for the souls lost trying to find this worthless POS when he ‘wandered off’? Their families, to paraphrase Bergdahl’s father’s words about other GITMO detainees, would “like their sons back”, too.

Yep, there with you. And what makes it even more frustrating; that as a voter we are powerless, because the opposition party who is supposed to be a check and balance- isn’t doing crap about the abuse of power.

melle1228 on June 2, 2014 at 11:27 AM

100%. And the LIV walk around saying – “oh, it’s good that we got our soldier back after he was captured, just goes to show you that the terrorist aren’t all that bad”. I hope they burn first.

Could there be an unanticipated backlash from our military men and women?

How would you feel knowing O negotiated with terrorists to get this guy home? And that 5 terrorists are now on the loose to help kill our military men and women? Now sprinkle the hero’s welcome on top of this cake. Might our heroes in uniform decide they cannot stay silent?

And, why then did he forget to take his weapon into the “battlefield”?

Rovin on June 2, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Maybe it was “Fight like the French” Day or something.

Seriously, I think the administration is trying to spin this as if Bergdahl is some kind of war hero (like Jessica Lynch or Scott O’Grady) but they unfortuantely have a left-wing family who praises the Taliban and whose son deserted when he got tired of the Army.

If I were the administration I would make this rat bastard’s return to the US as low key as humanly possible.

Everyone should try and not to go off the rails here.
Maybe a good time to try and let patriotism trump judgment.

verbaluce on June 2, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Define ‘patriotism.’

‘The title of US soldier is just the lie of fools’…

– Bowe Bergdahl

‘The horror that is America is disgusting’…

– Bowe Bergdahl

“I am sorry for everything here. These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid.”

– Bowe Bergdahl

“I am ashamed to be an American.’

– Bowe Bergdahl

“But most of all, I’m proud of how much you wanted to help the Afghan people, and what you were willing to do to go to that length. I’ll say it again: I’m so proud of how far you were willing to go to help the Afghan people. And I think you have succeeded.”

– Bob Bergdahl said, ‘fighting back tears’ during a press conference in Boise

Robert Bergdahl @bobbergdahl

@ABalkhi I am still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners. God will repay for the death of every Afghan child, ameen!

We gave up 5 top-level Taliban jihadists, including 2 wanted by the UN for war crimes.

We got back 1 possible deserter, who was ashamed of being an American, and returned him to his Taliban-sympathising, ‘democracy is a cult’ father, who has argued that the death of every Afghan killed by the United States must be avenged.

And it isn’t just conservatives who are going after Bergdahl. It is the military community. The man is a disgrace who got people killed. He should be court-martialed and jailed.

melle1228 on June 2, 2014 at 12:26 PM

The LEAST crime he’s guilty of is deserting his post at time of war. He’s probably also a traitor (soldiers who served with him have said they believed he was AIDING the Taliban attacks against them).

Both crimes carry the DEATH SENTENCE.

As long as he remains in the United States there is always the chance a future Administration grows a pair and prosecutes him. Which is why I predict he will flee back to his Taliban budz soon as he can.

Rice insisted that Bergdahl had served with “honor and distinction,” a claim that will be tested in the coming days and weeks

The claim might be tested on the internet, or even in some media outlets, but it’s very unlikely that it will ever be tested in a military court.

There is already an abundance of evidence in the public arena that supports the conclusion that Bergdahl was a deserter, and possibly even an enemy collaborator. But it is clear from the Obama administration’s statements, like this one by the despicable liar Susan Rice, that they won’t allow an investigation or a trial to determine the facts. The narrative they’ve created, to serve their obvious political purposes, is that Bergdahl was a good soldier and a POW, and that’s the story they’ll stick to — facts be damned.

An important point to remember when calling Bergdahl a deserter is to remember that he didn’t just ‘desert’, he defected, far worse.

VorDaj on June 2, 2014 at 12:27 PM

I don’t think we have evidence of a defection or that Bergdahl went out in search of joining the Taliban. But, it does seem odd that they didn’t behead Bergdahl which is their usual way of dealing with infidels.

Weeks of searching turned into months. The military pushed his parents and fellow soldiers to sign nondisclosure agreements. But before everyone signed, a comrade from his unit publicly called on Facebook for Bergdahl’s execution as a deserter.

It’s not patriotic to put America in worst danger for a man that simply walked away from his unit, and essentially caused the death of several soldiers. THEY are the ones who deserve justice not Bergdahl.

To be “AWOL” means to be absent without leave from a branch of the military. “Desertion,” on the other hand, is a “prolonged absence.” You can be AWOL for 30 days. After that, you are a deserter. The military is a show-up sort of business. When you don’t show up–you get court-martialed.

There are peacetime desertions and wartime desertions. Wartime desertions are generally considered worse.

In the early 1970s, young George W. Bush was a wartime deserter.

This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. It is backed up six ways from Sunday by solid documentary evidence, witness statements and research by journalists.

-snip-

It’s true that George W. Bush was never convicted of desertion. It’s also true that the Hollywood image of desertion (a soldier fleeing a battlefield in cowardice) does not apply here. Bush never got anywhere near a battlefield. He wasn’t capable of committing that kind of desertion.

But that George W. Bush was guilty of desertion–and in more than just a technical sense (i.e., “missed a few meetings,” the RNC spin)–is virtually undeniable. It’s not an opinion. It’s the only reasonable conclusion from the facts.

Personally, I don’t care if young George W. Bush was snorting cocaine off the bellies of prostitutes instead of doing his Air Guard duty. His desertion adds some hypocrisy to the more recent Operation Flight Suit, but in the big scheme of things Dubya’s lost youth (even though it lasted until he was 40) is not the most pressing of national issues.

But when, on a nationally broadcast debate, one of the top three news anchors in America, Peter Jennings, states unequivocally that the claim that George W. Bush is a deserter is “a reckless charge not supported by the facts,” there is a problem.

A fact being irrelevant is not the same thing as a fact being untrue. Michael Moore is a liar if he says Bush is a deserter when Bush was not in fact absent from duty without permission for more than 30 days.

But if Bush was absent without permission for more than 30 days…well, shouldn’t we at least proceed based on the facts? Do we start calling people liars because we don’t like the facts they cite?

He’s fully entitled to a trial before any criminal sanction is taken against him.

But, as you well know, that is not the same standard for policy or for politics. Besides, Obama will never let the military investigate or try the guy b/c it would hurt Obama. So, arguing “wait for the trial” is asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

Obama did this secretly, without following the law.

He negotiated with terrorists, which isn’t a good idea.

Even assuming you are OK with his negotiating with terrorists, he made a lousy deal – giving away far too much for what the U.S. received in return.

But top all that off with the fact that the guy they traded for appears to be a deserted and terrorist sympathizer?